New book explores theories of indigenous politics

Thursday 29 Jun 2017

A
new book by a Charles Sturt University (CSU) academic is the first
comprehensive integration of political theory to explain indigenous politics.

Indigeneity: A politics
of potential – Australia, Fiji and New Zealand is the sixth book by Associate
Professor of political science Dominic O'Sullivan in the CSU School of Humanities and Social
Sciences.

Professor
O'Sullivan says the book explores national reconciliation, liberal democracy,
citizenship and indigenous political authority.

"By
examining the basic question of citizenship − who belongs, and on whose terms? −
I argue that indigeneity's local geo-political focus, underpinned by global
theoretical developments in law and politics, makes indigeneity a movement of
forward-looking transformational politics," he said.

"Citizenship
defines the terms of indigenous belonging to the liberal state. It is an ideological
and power laden concept that can exacerbate or mediate political tensions over
the distribution of public power and authority.

"Nations
like Australia and New Zealand have long histories of using citizenship to
promote assimilation.

"However,
liberal citizenship can be differentiated to make it inclusive. It can respond
to enduring claims of prior occupancy by recognising the right to difference in
cultural expression, but sameness in political opportunities; difference in
forms of land tenure, but sameness in capacity to make decisions about how land
is used; difference in the ways one is taught at school, but sameness in
educational quality."

Professor
O'Sullivan (pictured) said his book provides an indigenous framework for thinking about
how to engage liberal societies in discussions about reconciliation,
self-determination and sovereignty.

"Indigeneity
is a claim to the liberal recognition of difference," he said. "This has some
acceptance in New Zealand, for example, but remains peripheral to mainstream
Australian politics.

"Cultural
context and purpose motivates indigenous economic activity. There is a
transgenerational perspective, a time horizon beyond the need for an immediate
return to shareholders.

"Culture
is preliminary to effective health services and to education which is, in turn,
a determinant of indigenous access to labour markets and the ways in which land
rights may be used for both material and spiritual purposes. In these ways, the
relationship between culture and citizenship is important.

"Citizenship,
too, is a determinant of indigenous economic opportunity. It influences
people's access to economic agency. When agency is secure one sees that
indigenous ethnicity is not synonymous with victimhood."

Professor
O'Sullivan says differentiated citizenship requires respect for culture, but it
also requires respect for the right to participate in public affairs, to
participate in the setting of school curriculums and pedagogies, the setting of
labour market policies and standards for the use of natural resources.

"It
requires scope for indigenous peoples to influence the character of the state,
by sitting in parliaments as a matter of right as they have in New Zealand
since 1867, but which Australia does not entertain."

He
says the context of indigeneity's engagement with the liberal state explains
its separation from ethnic minority politics in Australia and New Zealand, for
example. The distinction is emphasised when one compares the indigenous
politics of these Australasian states with Fiji, where the recent withdrawal of
the colonial power and restoration of the indigenous people's majority
population status has not advanced self-determination.

"Fiji
is not a liberal state, but amid its political dysfunction are strong
international pressures to adopt a liberal democratic form where differentiated
citizenship could give indigenous Fijians political voice and cultural security
as a basis for reconciliation."